Contax Zeiss Survival Guide

[Randy Rubin]

I have a set of MM lenses and am considering a Macro option - which of the 60mm lenses is the desirable option and is there an MM version (I've never seen one listed).

Thanks!

 

[Nick Morrison]

I have a set of MM lenses and am considering a Macro option - which of the 60mm lenses is the desirable option and is there an MM version (I've never seen one listed).

Thanks!

Randy both of the macros - the 60 2.8 and 100 2.8 - are generally found with serial numbers in the "MM" range. And their coatings generally match MM very closely. Though they are AE (ie their aperture control is the original AE type, not MM format), it's safe to view them are sort of "tweeners" that live btw AE and MM gracefully. Though they do have the ninja stars, fyi. But they are rarely visible, if at all.

The 60 Macro is sublime. There is a more affordable "C" version that has identical optics to the bigger 60, it just only focuses down to 2:1 macro...not 1:1 macro.

I adore both the 60 and 100, but we tend to use the 60 more often.

Hope this helps!

 

[Nick Morrison]

Which lens is "better" the 28-80 or the 35-70? I guess the 30-70 is basically
for the 645? And I guess both are Push&Pull?

The 35-70 3.4 is for Contax Full Frame SLR. Both are push pull yes.

Hard to say which is better. We use the 28-85 a lot. Its very, very sharp. And sort of spectacular. The 28-85 range is very useful. Like a bag of Contax primes in one lens. That said, it's big and can't do everything. Can't shoot lowlight. Hard to attach a follow focus too. But it's sort of magical.

The 35-70 is another beast all together. I'd wager it's not as sharp wide open as the 28-85, but stopped down it's a monster. A total beast. And yes, has insane micro contrast, colors, and 3D pop. It has that magic "something". I long to use it more.

The 35-135 is another beast as well. VERY SHARP.

Is there a need to look for specific models? AE/MM?

As Tommaso said, they are all MM made in Japan.

 

[Janis Huber]

The 35-70 3.4 is for Contax Full Frame SLR. Both are push pull yes.

Hard to say which is better. We use the 28-85 a lot. Its very, very sharp. And sort of spectacular. The 28-85 range is very useful. Like a bag of Contax primes in one lens. That said, it's big and can't do everything. Can't shoot lowlight. Hard to attach a follow focus too. But it's sort of magical.

The 35-70 is another beast all together. I'd wager it's not as sharp wide open as the 28-85, but stopped down it's a monster. A total beast. And yes, has insane micro contrast, colors, and 3D pop. It has that magic "something". I long to use it more.

The 35-135 is another beast as well. VERY SHARP.



As Tommaso said, they are all MM made in Japan.

Thanks for the reply!

What about Bokeh? Do those two lenses differ in theri Bokeh?

Best

 

[Nick Morrison]

Thanks for the reply!

What about Bokeh? Do those two lenses differ in theri Bokeh?

Best

From what I can tell, not much. I mean if there's a difference, it's subtle. The 35-70 has that extra "something" though - 3D, colors, micro contrast, etc

The 35-70 also has a very handy macro feature, for excellent CF bokeh.

But both lenses were designed and built at similar times, so they feel more related than they do different.

The biggest drawback of 28-85 is you lose 1/2 a stop at the long end. Whereas the 35-70 is a constant aperture across all focal ranges. And is just very small, light, and handy to use.

And is

 

[Timothy Jones]

I'm wondering if anyone has or has shot with the Zeiss Contax 15mm 3.5 . I know the new Zeiss 15mm 2.8 is killer, but is the 15mm 3.5 nice? Sharpe yet kinda 70's cool?
Thanks,
Tim'

 

[Nick Morrison]

I'm wondering if anyone has or has shot with the Zeiss Contax 15mm 3.5 . I know the new Zeiss 15mm 2.8 is killer, but is the 15mm 3.5 nice? Sharpe yet kinda 70's cool?
Thanks,
Tim'

One of the few Contax primes I've NEVER shot with. It's always been so expensive, been hard to justify (vs say the Zeiss 15 2.8).

The MTFs suggest that it's not bad, and back then...making a wide angle this WIDE must have been a massive technical challenge. From MTFs, appears ok wide open, with massive fall off on edges (at full frame). Stopped down looks fine. I'm sure the render is interesting, for sure (esp wide open). And the flares could well be gorgeous. And honestly...I've always been VERY, VERY curious...but again for the price, hard to justify!

Esp when the Tokina 11-16 is relatively affordable by comparison also...

 

[Timothy Jones]

I would really like like to see it. Zeiss also made the Leica R version too .
I guess the reason there's no footage around is the price. It doesn't seem so bad, since the price of them all has risen so much.

One of the few Contax primes I've NEVER shot with. It's always been so expensive, been hard to justify (vs say the Zeiss 15 2.8).

The MTFs suggest that it's not bad, and back then...making a wide angle this WIDE must have been a massive technical challenge. From MTFs, appears ok wide open, with massive fall off on edges (at full frame). Stopped down looks fine. I'm sure the render is interesting, for sure (esp wide open). And the flares could well be gorgeous. And honestly...I've always been VERY, VERY curious...but again for the price, hard to justify!

Esp when the Tokina 11-16 is relatively affordable by comparison also...

 

[Nick Morrison]

I would really like like to see it. Zeiss also made the Leica R version too .
I guess the reason there's no footage around is the price. It doesn't seem so bad, since the price of them all has risen so much.

Here's a quick flickr search of sample images. Have to say...looks kinda amazing!!

 

[Janis Huber]

On ebay there are a lot of sellers who declare the Contax Lenses as EX++

In the description you can often finde: little bit of dust/haze, but shoudln't affect picture quality

==> so does it or doesn't it affect picture quality?

Cheers

 

[Nick Morrison]

On ebay there are a lot of sellers who declare the Contax Lenses as EX++

In the description you can often finde: little bit of dust/haze, but shoudln't affect picture quality

==> so does it or doesn't it affect picture quality?

Cheers

A little bit of dust is acceptable - a couple of specs. But haze is unacceptable, and almost certainly would affect your picture. Haze often looks like grease or oil fogging back of the lens. Could certainly compromise resolution, contrast, etc. I personally reject all lenses with haze.

Hope this helps!

 

[Uli Plank]

I second this. Some dust is normal with these lenses, since they change volume when focusing, even more so when zooming, so they pump air in and out. But haze can be lots of things, like coming from a heavy smokers home or having been used in environments polluted by aerosols of any kind. Could even be early signs of fungus (or nutrition for them!) or the remains of trying to remove it.

I recently tested an Angenieux 20-80mm zoom that a friend wanted to buy against my own, which is as good as a fifty year old lens can be. The sample he was holding looked very bad in comparison and I could clearly see haze with a LED flashlight. Test shots showed significantly lower contrast on that one, and he refused it. Resolution was the same , though.

BTW, EX++ should look like it was sitting on a shelf for most of it's life, only minor traces of dust would be acceptable. If you see EX++ at KEH, you can trust it, but on fleabay it's quite a different thing…

OTOH, I bought most of my Contax lenses from fleabay (Europe and Japan) and I only had to send back one, the rest was really fine. Most owners of such lenses seem to take good care of them.

 

[Janis Huber]

The 35-70 3.4 is for Contax Full Frame SLR. Both are push pull yes.

Hard to say which is better. We use the 28-85 a lot. Its very, very sharp. And sort of spectacular. The 28-85 range is very useful. Like a bag of Contax primes in one lens. That said, it's big and can't do everything. Can't shoot lowlight. Hard to attach a follow focus too. But it's sort of magical.

The 35-70 is another beast all together. I'd wager it's not as sharp wide open as the 28-85, but stopped down it's a monster. A total beast. And yes, has insane micro contrast, colors, and 3D pop. It has that magic "something". I long to use it more.

The 35-135 is another beast as well. VERY SHARP.



As Tommaso said, they are all MM made in Japan.

Man, its a hard decesion!

Focal length or Speed and Sharpness! Maybe I sould just buy both and figure it out.

 

[Uli Plank]

My two cents (Euro):

- The 28-85 is the most versatile, plenty fast with modern sensors and sharp too.

– The 35-135 is hard to find, expensive and lacks on the wide end if you are not using a FF (stills) camera.

– The 35-70 is too limited if you consider a zoom at all. After all, having a zoom instead of changing primes is all about flexibility in uncontrolled shooting situations. Or how often you do need it only to zoom while filming?

The 28-85 is about the same weight to carry as three slow primes in it's range. For sure those are sharper, but not very much.

 

[Janis Huber]

1) Has any of you used a Speedbooster for your Contax lenses?

I guess the Speedbooster for Contax must be the ultimate tool since you would
gain a stop of speed.

2) are there any tests between the 35-70 and the 28-85. Would love to see that
micro-contrast difference!

Cheers

 

[Phil Dickinson]

1) Has any of you used a Speedbooster for your Contax lenses?

I guess the Speedbooster for Contax must be the ultimate tool since you would
gain a stop of speed.

Cheers

Yes I have a Speedbooster.

I use it with my Fujifilm X mount APS-C stills gear.

It it has a multilying effect on both aperture and focal length of 0.71 so my 2,8/28 becomes a 2/20 for example (much cheaper than the 2,8/21).

More interestingly my 1,4/50 becomes a 1/35 and my 1,4/85 becomes a 1/60. Impressive stuff.

It covers Super 35 too of course.

Its unlikely we we will ever see a Fuji X mount for Red, but a Sony E mount is feasible and a c/y to E mount speedbooster exists.

 

[Uli Plank]

I own the Speedbooster and I'm using it with my BMPCC. Works well.

On which camera do you want to use it?

 

[Ben Scott]

1) Has any of you used a Speedbooster for your Contax lenses?

I guess the Speedbooster for Contax must be the ultimate tool since you would
gain a stop of speed.

2) are there any tests between the 35-70 and the 28-85. Would love to see that
micro-contrast difference!

Cheers

Lens Turbo 2 works great with contax lenses, but sadly doesn't fit my new Sony FS7. Metabones Speedbooster Ultra fits the camera, but physically activates the aperture pin the lenses, meaning you can't adjust the iris.

 

[Janis Huber]

I own the Speedbooster and I'm using it with my BMPCC. Works well.

On which camera do you want to use it?

I plan to use it on my FS-700!

@ Uli, why doensn't it fit your FS 7?

Cheers

 

[Ben Scott]

The speedbooster Ultra for ef to e mount hits the aperture pins on the contax lenses.